[spoon]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
and if you'll note, I included both time and place when noting that there is a tendancy for theory about the ancient past to align with political needs....

Your example is the equivalent of debunking God by saying, The Son of Sam heard the Voice of God, so therefore God is bad. It was an isolated and extreme example, and not reflective of the current state of affairs.

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
...and those who aren't sufficiently close to the politically accepted Version elsewhere are simply excluded.

By politics here, I assume you mean the politics of the scientists, and not, say, world politics. If this is the case, the reason it is difficult to get "revolutionary" ideas accepted is because they have a lot to overcome. It is not a conspiracy to keep, for example, Young Earth theories down. The reason Young Earth theories aren't accepted is because they are bogus. The arguments I've read about have all been addressed and discredited.

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Not in and of itself - but when I made the post you are referring to, I was responding to a question on what political winds I thought the theory might be riding, not specific technical problems with it.

You got your causality backwards, then. Racsim didn't beget evolution. Evolution did beget, however, the mostly innaccurate idea of Social Darwinism. Or are you saying that it's racism that keeps evolution in favor these days?

As far as the scientists using human as "specimens", I'm not sure, then, what "politcal wind" you draw from there. Please elaborate. Not on the details, but rather how it applies to the discussion at hand.

Originally posted by Spoon:
In any case, you are wrong, since there are consequences for behavior in a secular society: Jail, for one.

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
That's a standard based on temporal power ... which I mentioned in the segment you quote ... and I even specified "that you can get away with" (which you also quoted).

How is being punished in the afterlife different from being punished in your regular life, other than degree?

Originally posted by Jack Simth:

I kinda get the impression you aren't reading these too terribly closely.

Easy does it, buckeroo

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Also, not all interpertations are correct.

Ah but that's the rub, how do we know which is the right interpretation? Seems silly to base a moral guideline on something as ambiguous as, say, the bible. Too much room to wiggle around, if you will.

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Oy, do I need to make absolutely certain I include all my qualifiers and sub-explanations on there every single time?

Don't you hate that!

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
As I've mentioned before, they debate the details - sequence, mechanisims, and the like - but few dispute the main theses, when there are enough problems that they ought to be, and there are other possibilities for the other factors with different models.

Not true. Details are debated and then compared to the model. Model adopts to the changes. Other models are welcome, but few make the cut. Do you have a better model? Please tell!

Originally posted by spoon:
which seems like a valid thing to claim. Why is that a brush off?

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Now I'm slightly confused - above you claim it is as nearly proven as a theory can be, and here you claim it's valid to claim it is currently undergoing re-evaluation - at first glance, those seem slightly contradictory. Please elaborate.

You are aware of how science works, right? I mean, I feel like I'm holding your hand here, but Scientific Theory is never "proven" in the boolean since of the word. There is no such thing as Truth. Take the theory of my Left Foot. Now, I believe that my left foot is indeed connected to my left leg, and there are lots of facts and details to support this conclusion. In fact, the theory of my Left Foot is about as close to proven as you can come with a theory. However, if you were to come up with some evidence, say, that really I am just a brain in a jar, and, in fact, I have no left foot at all, then I will revise my Left Foot theory with the inclusion of that datum.

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
I suspect it will be undergoing re-evaluation until the end of time..

And you would be right! Such is the nature of science. You can't squeeze Truth out of a photon.

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
There's lots of contradictions and problems with all competing camps. Besides, if the details and mechanisims actually supported the theory, there wouldn't be a need to debate them, as they would all essentially agree....

Back to my foot, if one guy said it had five toes, and another guy said it only had four, it doesn't follow that I have no foot.

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Christianity is more divided than you seem to think, and many of them either don't consider it important or consider other things more worthwhile.

Well, if the details and mechanisims of Christianity actually supported the Theory, there wouldn't be a need to debate them.

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
It's surprisingly difficult to get large amounts of funding for anything specific, more so for one which there is disagreement even between the different factions of Christianity.

True for secular scientific endeavors as well. Too bad. (I don't mean that facetiously, it really is too bad).